Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Vectran is a high-performance thermoplastic multifilament yarn spun from Vectra? liquid crystal polymer (LCP). Vectran is the only commercially available melt spun LCP fiber in the world. Vectran fiber exhibits exceptional strength and rigidity. Pound for pound Vectran fiber is five times stronger than steel and ten times stronger than aluminum.These unique properties characterize Vectran:

--------------------Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.

Vectran fabric is what we?re going to use to create the Shroomery Space Station!? It will be a giant inflatable living quarters in space, complete with research laboratories for micro-gravity spawning, and resemble a 1,200 foot high Amanita Muscaria mushroom!

The fabric of choice for the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable module concept is a synthetic material called Vectran. It was used as the airbag fabric for the last three NASA Mars lander missions ? the Spirit and Opportunity robots, as well as Mars Pathfinder that deployed the Sojourner rover.

Vectran has almost twice the strength of other synthetic materials, such as Kevlar, and performs better at cold temperatures.

Yes! I finally get to go into that crazy flight simulator that spins you around...

::fishes out Space Camp rejection letter and burns it, laughing::

--------------------Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake.

Vectran fabric is more akin to Kevlar and other such fabrics. It was used for the landing balloons on the recent mars-rover missions.

You might be thinking of tubular-Buckminsterfullerene, which is far more exotic. Buckytubes make Vectran look like package-twine, in the same way that Hunter Thompson's pure adrenochrome makes mescaline look like ginger beer!

"A Biological Processing Unit (BPU) is the biological equivalent of a computer?s CPU. Using DNA strands as input and output, two of the DNA amino acids as computer bits, and two enzymes (for cut and paste respectively). The early 2-state/2-symbol BPU published in November 2001 had approximately 10^9 units, collectively they took up 1 ml in volume and could perform at 1GHz. Not bad when you consider that Electronic CPU?s took nearly 80 years of technical advances to get to the same speeds."

Quote:Vultrue said:whoa...wtf im having trouble wrapping my head around this one.

Which, Buckytubes or Biological Processing Units?

Well, you're in good company...

Well, immortality, the end of economics...functional nanotech would pretty much guarantee both of those, because there would be, you know, no reason to die, (laughs) if you had sufficient nanotech to keep resetting the little cellular clocks. And, with even, even sort of half-assed nanotech, you could make anything out of anything. So, you could make gold bars out of McDonald's burgers, and McDonald's burgers out of garbage. And there'd be...there's no basis for this whole thing that we've always done about value. Anyone could have anything...anything they wanted at any time. And everything, including human beings, would be completely protean. We could look and act like anything at all. It's a compelling vision, but it's not just one that I'm able to get...get my head around. There's no traction for me there. It's the point where I really do belong to "The Old Order."

--William Gibson (Interviewed)

Drexlerian Nanotechnology: The specific area of Molecular Nanotechnology where the machines are designed to be self-reproducing in addition to their main task of molecular level construction of some other construct.

I don't know. The intersection of genetics/proteomics and functional nanotechnology will certainly speed us down the road towards, what can only be defined from this vantage point in time, as post-humanity. It raises more questions than answers...

Perhaps December 22nd, 2012, isn't the end of the calendar, but the beginning?

Quote:Papaver said:You might be thinking of tubular-Buckminsterfullerene, which is far more exotic. Buckytubes make Vectran look like package-twine, in the same way that Hunter Thompson's pure adrenochrome makes mescaline look like ginger beer!

In the future metals will be a thing of the past. The only question is how far into the future.

Devices that convert information from one form into another according to a definite procedure are known as automata. One such hypothetical device is the universal Turing machine, which stimulated work leading to the development of modern computers. The Turing machine and its special cases, including finite automata, operate by scanning a data tape, whose striking analogy to information-encoding biopolymers inspired several designs for molecular DNA computers. Laboratory-scale computing using DNA and human-assisted protocols has been demonstrated, but the realization of computing devices operating autonomously on the molecular scale remains rare. Here we describe a programmable finite automaton comprising DNA and DNA-manipulating enzymes that solves computational problems autonomously. The automaton's hardware consists of a restriction nuclease and ligase, the software and input are encoded by double-stranded DNA, and programming amounts to choosing appropriate software molecules. Upon mixing solutions containing these components, the automaton processes the input molecule via a cascade of restriction, hybridization and ligation cycles, producing a detectable output molecule that encodes the automaton's final state, and thus the computational result. In our implementation 1012 automata sharing the same software run independently and in parallel on inputs (which could, in principle, be distinct) in 120??l solution at room temperature at a combined rate of 109 transitions per second with a transition fidelity greater than 99.8%, consuming less than 10-10?W.

And here's a article regarding it...

A "Trillion" Computers In A Single Drop Of WaterNov 26, 2001

A group of scientists headed by Prof. Ehud Shapiro at the Weizmann Institute of Science has used biological molecules to create a tiny computer -- a programmable two-state, two-symbol finite automaton -- in a test tube.

Reported in the Nov 22 edition of Nature, this biological nanocomputer is so small that a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) such computers co-exist and compute in parallel, in a drop the size of 1/10 of a milliliter of watery solution held at room temperature. Collectively, the computers perform a billion operations per second with greater than 99.8% accuracy per operation while requiring less than a billionth of a Watt of power.

This study may lead to future computers that can operate within the human body, interacting with its biochemical environment to yield far-reaching biological and pharmaceutical applications.

The computer's input, output, and 'software' are made up of DNA molecules. For 'hardware,' the computer uses two naturally occurring enzymes that manipulate DNA.

When mixed together in solution, the software and hardware molecules operate in harmony on the input molecule to create the output molecule, forming a simple mathematical computing machine, known as a finite automaton.

This nanocomputer can be programmed to perform several simple tasks by choosing different software molecules to be mixed in solution. For instance, it can detect whether, in an input molecule encoding a list made of 0's and 1's, all the 0's precede all the 1's.

'The living cell contains incredible molecular machines that manipulate information-encoding molecules such as DNA and RNA in ways that are fundamentally very similar to computation,' says Prof. Shapiro of the Institute's Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Department and the Biological Chemistry Department.

'Since we don't know how to effectively modify these machines or create new ones just yet, the trick is to find naturally existing machines that, when combined, can be steered to actually compute.'

Shapiro challenged his Ph.D. student, Yaakov Benenson, to do just that: to find a molecular realization of one the simplest mathematical computing machines -- a finite automaton that detects whether a list of 0's and 1's has an even number of 1's.

Benenson came up with a solution using DNA molecules and two naturally occurring DNA- manipulating enzymes: Fok-I and Ligase. Operating much like a biological editing kit, Fok-I functions as a chemical scissors, cleaving DNA in a specific pattern, whereas the Ligase enzyme seals DNA molecules together.

As the lab work progressed, Shapiro and his team realized that the automaton they built could be programmed to perform different tasks by selecting different subsets of the molecules realizing the eight possible rules of operation controlling the performance of a two-state, two-symbol finite automaton.

The software molecules, together with two 'output display' molecules used to visualize the final result of the computation, can be used to create a total of 765 software programs.

Several of these programs were tested in the lab, including the 'even 1's checker' and the '0's before 1's' test mentioned above, as well as programs that check whether a list of 0's and 1's has at least (or at most) one 0, and whether it both starts with a 0 and ends with a 1.

The nanocomputer created by Shapiro's team uses the four DNA bases known as A, G, C and T, to encode the input data as well as the program rules underlying the computer 'software.' Both input and software molecules are designed to have one DNA strand longer than the other, resulting in a single-strand overhang called a 'sticky end.'

Two molecules with complementary sticky ends can temporarily stick to each other (a process known as hybridization), allowing DNA Ligase to permanently seal them into one molecule. The sticky end of the input molecule encodes the current symbol and the current state of the computation, whereas the sticky end of each 'software' molecule is designed to detect a particular state-symbol combination.

A two-state, two-symbol automaton has four such combinations. For each combination the nanocomputer has two possible next moves, to remain in the same state or to change to the other state, allowing eight software molecules to cover all possibilities.

In each processing step the input molecule hybridizes with a software molecule that has a complementary sticky end, allowing Ligase to seal them together using two ATP molecules as energy.

Then comes Fok-I, detecting a special site in the software molecule known as the recognition site. It cleaves the input molecule in a location determined by the software molecule, thus exposing a sticky end that encodes the next input symbol and the next state of the computation.

Once the last input symbol is processed, a sticky end encoding the final state of the computation is exposed and detected, again by hybridization and ligation, by one of two 'output display' molecules. The resulting molecule, which reports the output of the computation, is made visible to the human eye in a process known as gel electrophoresis.

The nanocomputer created is too simple to have immediate applications, however it may pave the way to future computers that can operate within the human body with unique biological and pharmaceutical applications.

'For instance, such a future computer could sense an abnormal biochemical change in the body and decide how to correct it by synthesizing and releasing the necessary drug,' says Prof. Zvi Livneh, a DNA expert from the Institute's Department of Biological Chemistry who collaborated on this project.

No, I'm just regurgitating little chunks of what Ballard referred to as the "invisible literature" of a civilization: Those scientific papers, scholarly dissertations, governmental memoranda, and business and advertising trends, that inform the way things move. It's great data to stuff the old mental-database with. You just can't make up stuff like this, but if you have enough of it, you can sometimes cross-index it in interesting and occasionally meaningful ways.

Yes, Gibson wrote "Neuromancer." Not his greatest book, but an important one. It's interesting how he keeps trying to distance himself from that work a little bit, but can't. It's become sort of a literary mill-stone around his neck. However, it's also evident, that he plays with his relationship to that work just a bit.

I just finished his latest book, "Pattern Recognition," which I think is his best novel to date. I've always had an affinity for the way he thinks, conceptualizes, and strings words together, and I think his writing is really becoming first-rate. I think, perhaps, he has finally moved from that uncomfortable position of "celebrated cultural visionary" to that, probably more personally rewarding, position of accomplished and talented author.

In regards to my own stuff, thanks. I should do that again. I do need to get some stuff done. I've been a little distracted these past few weeks, by local festivities, but I'll probably be back on-track soon...

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The Foresight Institute's 1999 Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology

Molecular NanoTechnology (MNT) includes a wide variety of technologies that have very different risk profiles. Access to the end products of MNT should be distinguished from access to the various forms of the underlying development technology. Access to MNT products should be unrestricted unless this access poses a risk to global security.

Accidental or willful misuse of MNT must be constrained by legal liability and, where appropriate, subject to criminal prosecution.

Governments, companies, and individuals who refuse or fail to follow responsible principles and guidelines for development and dissemination of MNT should, if possible, be placed at a competitive disadvantage with respect to access to MNT intellectual property, technology, and markets.

MNT device designs should incorporate provisions for built-in safety mechanisms, such as: 1) absolute dependence on a single artificial fuel source or artificial "vitamins" that don't exist in any natural environment; 2) making devices that are dependent on broadcast transmissions for replication or in some cases operation; 3) routing control signal paths throughout a device, so that subassemblies do not function independently; 4) programming termination dates into devices, and 5) other innovations in laboratory or device safety technology developed specifically to address the potential dangers of MNT. Further research is needed on MNT risk management, as well as the theory, mechanisms, and experimental designs for built-in safeguard systems.

"A robot may not injure humanity, or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

Have you guys seen "I robot" yet? It hasn't come out here yet...from the previews its looks to me a lttle dodgy...Will Smith just has to have his "classic" one liners...they were good on Fresh Prince, but in a film based on an Issac Asimov book? I dunno...